AUSTRALIA’S renewable energy transition has sparked heated debate, especially with the announcement of the Hunter Offshore Wind Zone, which aims to generate 5GW of electricity from over 300 massive floating wind turbines. Although untested at this scale, it is touted by Labor as a “clean energy solution.”
However, a comparison with nuclear power reveals significant discrepancies in cost, longevity, and overall impact. Offshore wind falls short.
Estimates from global projects suggest that building 5GW of floating offshore wind capacity in the Newcastle region could cost between $60 and $80 billion.
According to the GenCost and Frontier Economics reports, the same $60 billion could fund 6GW of clean, safe nuclear power capacity.
Offshore wind turbines typically have a lifespan of 20–25 years and require substantial maintenance due to harsh marine conditions.
In contrast, modern nuclear power plants operate for 60–80 years, with lower long-term maintenance costs per megawatt of output.
Over a century, nuclear provides more consistent energy with fewer replacements or upgrades.
Offshore wind delivers only 35–50 percent of its nameplate capacity, meaning a 5GW project would yield just 2.5GW of effective capacity.
Meanwhile, nuclear reactors operate at 94 percent of their nameplate capacity, so a 6GW nuclear facility would reliably produce 5.7GW – more than double the effective output of the offshore wind project.
The environmental impact of offshore wind also warrants scrutiny. Floating wind farms disrupt large areas of pristine marine ecosystems, interfere with migratory patterns, and require extensive undersea cabling that damages oceanic environments and beaches – like Hawks Nest.
Decommissioning these structures poses further challenges, with fiberglass turbine blades and components creating significant waste.
In contrast, nuclear power, while raising valid yet manageable concerns about waste management, has a far smaller environmental footprint over its lifecycle.
Advances in technology now offer safer, more efficient solutions for waste storage and even reuse in next-generation reactors.
If Australia is serious about reducing emissions while securing reliable energy for decades, nuclear power must be part of the conversation.
Policymakers need to move beyond short-term costs and ideological resistance to consider long-term benefits and sustainability.
Floating offshore wind cannot compete with nuclear power on cost, reliability, or environmental impact.
It’s time to invest in the more prudent, proven solution: nuclear power.
Yours sincerely,
Bruce MURRAY,
Tea Gardens.